ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!! Flash should not be the main structure of a website.
Sorry...just don't like flash to be used for navigation and content.
It was a flash website and animation class essentially, so it had to be that way. I know I like it for navigation, cause you can do cool things with buttons, but it can take a lot of coding to make it really up-datable. ;)
My other recent website that I did in my basic web design class is http://www.hireanartgeek.com, which uses it for navigation but the rest is css/xhtml. I much prefer that.
I really can't agree with using flash for navigation, as it is less accessible and updatable than HTML and CSS. If I were to use my iPod touch to browse your website, I wouldn't see any navigation: that's not good.
Besides which, that kind of animation can probably be done in javascript.
I'm really not trying to rag on you, there's just good reasons not to use flash for Navigation or Content.
there's just good reasons not to use flash for Navigation or Content.
If you don't think it's good for navigation or content, that means it's basically useless in your eyes, except for what, games? lol
Haha, nice idea closing a page by throwing it in the trash. :smile:
In the gallery page I needed to go in twice to see the thumbnails. Not sure if we're supposed to be able to zoom to full pictures, I never managed to.
By the way, it is a cool idea.
It would take a lot of work in javascript, to make it come even close to what it is, which I have no idea really how to code something that complex in, and don't really have any desire to as well.
It's actually not that hard to do the menu for Hire an Art Geek in JavaScript. You're actually already halfway there. You're using the MooTools JavaScript framework to do the gallery image loader effects on your gallery page. I'm going to guess you downloaded that just for the slimbox effect and set up the effects from step by step instructions.
Doing up your menus in MooTools, would be harder, but has its advantages to coding it up in Flash. If you're doing your Flash menus in Actionscript, then you'll probably find it easier to do it in MooTools. If you're binding button actions and effects to the button objects themselves, writing code in MooTools to do it will be harder, but 100x faster once you figure out the basic MooTools syntax.
MooTools is actually the primary JS framework that I use. It's kick ass powerful, but it's not the most popular one out there. It's one of the major ones though. I think jQuery may be the leading one in terms of common usage, but I'm not sure. There are a lot more books written about jQuery than the other frameworks and in comparison to some of the other notable JS frameworks, jQuery is pretty straight forward to learn.
It has its uses.
The good (http://www.g-ray.co.uk/misc/BBCclock.swf), the bad (http://www.g-ray.co.uk/misc/Proper_Use_Of_English.swf), and the ugly (http://www.g-ray.co.uk/misc/im-a-cow.swf).
AOL email
Basically, there's no reason to write Javascript from scratch these days, as there's a lot of frameworks out there that will make it a lot easier.
Personally, I prefer to just use CSS for dropdown menus, rather than have a roving hover effect like that.
There are exceptions to the rule. No Flash, no zombo.com (http://www.zombo.com/)! Where would we be without.. zombo com?
I'm in doubt whether he is ignorant, and proud of it, or a really good troll. In any case, Flash is dead baby.
I consider myself more of an artist/designer than a scripter/coder, so I'd prefer to stick to flash which you can at least have a lot of creative elements drawn and then attach code to the visual elements. It makes more sense for me.When all you have is a hammer, any problem looks suspiciously like a nail...
You can hardly call flash dead when every video on youtube is flash based, let alone all the players on the web. Even the entire player interface on stickam is flash based.Everything has good uses, and that is one example. Video plugins always were sort of a mess. Flash was reasonably widespread and allowed a unified interface. (That being said, I prefer downloading and viewing things I like locally, so that I can take advantage of hardware acceleration features and have better playback.) At the same time, navigation still is carried out the same way as ever. Horses for courses.
When all you have is a hammer, any problem looks suspiciously like a nail...
When all you have is a hammer, any problem looks suspiciously like a nail...
I think that there are always two sides of a publishing problem:
1. What can I (the sender) do to get my message across?
2. What works on the receiver side, and how well does it do that under varying circumstances?
You have the first one covered, but the second one still needs some work. It's not like you'd be the first or the last one, not at all - artistic folks tend to think like that. Nonetheless it would be a good idea to research the "can of worms" caveats in terms of usability and accessibility so that appropriate countermeasures can be taken.
The most amazing sites on the web are flash based. What language or tool can compare to flash pages in creativity?
I really have no interest in catering to people who can't update their software or hardware that you can buy off ebay for less than $100, and get for free on any normal computer system, or people who purposely choose to not be compatible with the majority of people in the computer world.
I suppose people with visual disabilities are purposefully choosing to be incompatible with the rest of the computer world? That's rather insulting.
I beg to differ. Have you seen Google Wave? That's completely HTML/Javascript/CGI based. Flash is only involved in plugins. How about meebo? Google Docs?
Flash is only used to display videos because there is no standard way to display videos in html. The only other way to view videos and hear sound in a web browser is some sort of plugin to a media player installed on the user's computer.
To be honest, I don't blame you for wanting to deal with Flash because it's easier. But the reality is that Flash is not, and never has been an accessible way to view content. With a traditional computer setup, Flash works fine, but there are so many different ways to access the internet (Specifically the world wide web) now that Flash is becoming, in some ways, irrelevant.
Creativity is great, but sometimes I think designers need to look at the real world restrictions. Flash is almost entirely tied to the traditional computer.
Those are mostly stand alone downloadable apps aren't they?
What different ways? I'd take a oqo 2 over an iphone any day of the week.
None of those are downloadable...they're web apps, and they work on more than flash applications do.
Different ways? How about phones, Mobile Internet Devices, Video Game Consoles, et cetera?
http://www.meebo.com/
If yer disabled you are incompatible with the world, let alone the net, by definition, that's why it's called being disabled.
Meebo's pretty cool, but it's basically just boxes, no real heavy design. What's it written in again? Obviously they had a lot of time and money and programmers to work on it though huh? I bet the coding is huge.All of it is in Javascript, which I'm sure interacts with a server-side programming language.
All those devices are useless to surf the web except in an emergency. The oqo is only slightly larger, and has the full capabilities of a normal computer, and doesn't cost that much more than most of them. Why would I want any of those when I can have a full sized computer power in a umpc. It's those devices that are going to be on death row. Not flash.
I like to see well designed Flash sites. From an artistic perspective is the best tool in web design. Big commercial firms have been using flash extensively.
The main problem with flash in the era of visibility is the S.E.O incompatibility.
SE robots and spiders dislike flash sites.
Until those bastards in the HTML5 spec solidify on a standard for
Well, I wouldn't go so far to say that Javascript is fit as a replacement for much of Flash. It's a great replacement for the things that Flash should never have been used to do in the first place, but there are a couple of areas in which I would never pick Javascript over FlashChimera, about putting Flash over Javascript and XHTML, yeah you can do that. I don't remember how to do it off the top of my head and I don't have time to look it up right now. Not long ago, I had to fix a bug in an app for a client that served up either a Flash version of a banner ad or a plain HTML version of the banner ad depending on whether Flash was detected or not.
- Cross-site widgets: the most popular example of this would be video players. Even if a
- Sites that are really games or apps: Most any blockbuster movie site would fit this definition perfectly.
Again though, if it's for a menu it really should be done in Javascript. There are plenty of programs that you can use to make building menus much easier so if you don't want to learn a lick of Javascript to do it, you don't have to.
Hmm, yeah there's a javascript that's written specifically to do that to see if a flash player is detected, then takes you to the flash install page or whatever, maybe that could be adapted to just display html instead of putting up the page that says to install flash...hmm.
<div id="flashContainer">
...alternate content...
</div>SWFObject makes that quite easy. It is a javascript library that uses javascript to detect flash and load it onto the page. The alternate content is always there which makes the page useful even with browsers that don't have javascript.
You include the swfobject.js file and run swfobject.embedSWF() with the parameters you want. One of the parameters is the ID of a container on the page.
Then, elsewhere, you have the container:Code: [Select]<div id="flashContainer">
...alternate content...
</div>
The beauty here is the web indexers will see the alternate content and not just write your site off as empty.
Overall, I would also reinforce what a lot of people are already saying. Flash is a crutch necessary since things like a solid
I still don't agree that flash is just being implemented because there's no other solution. There's no reason that the entire web couldn't be flash based. Websites I've seen like the Keio-ensoku site are what inspired me to try to become a web designer. They're all encompassing and engrossing and show the potential of the web. No non flash site I've ever seen has that kind of potential to interact with a viewer, at least not one that doesn't have a huge team of developers that have put thousands of hours into coding it.
There's plenty of reasons the entire web couldn't be flash based. The first of which is that there isn't a standard protocol for serving flash pages. Flash is embedded in HTML which requires HTTP. Yet again, accessability.
Javascript is a full-fledged programming language. Flash is a binary plugin. Javascript is completely platform-agnostic, flash is limited by the plugin needed to view it.
That's yet another reason that Flash is unimpressive to me. It's a shortcut, and it's a shortcut that isn't as accessible, and therefore isn't as usable.
Here's a game written in Javascript, that you'd normally see written in Flash:
http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/BunnyHunt/
Flash isn't web design.
Javascript is a full-fledged programming language. Flash is a binary plugin. Javascript is completely platform-agnostic, flash is limited by the plugin needed to view it.Yep. (This actually is the flipside of it being more powerful. TANSTAAFL.)
Here's a game written in Javascript, that you'd normally see written in Flash:It seems to perform as well as any Flash based game, too. CPU load during the game appeared to be insignificant.
http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/BunnyHunt/
Flash isn't web design.Yep, in much the same way that a Java applet is not. An applet is just a thing on a web page. A Flash applet can also be run standalone on a local computer if you want.
Just because javascript is built into browsers now doesn't mean that flash won't be in the future. You had to install Javascript separately for years, and still do right for certain things? I could be wrong here, I never really followed or cared about javascript, because everything I've ever seen done in it is pretty junky.
If browsers start to install flash along with their installation you would feel differently? Just because browsers are dumb and don't feel it necessary to install with their installations doesn't mean that it's not web design.
Show me some good javascript that didn't take thousands of hours of coding, and years of study that can equal even the worst flash and I might agree with you.
That bunny shooting thing was unimpressive, it didn't even have sound? What's a shooting game without sound?
How is flash non standardized? It's not like an avi where there's like dozens of different compressors and decoders. One flash player will play every swf as far as I'm aware.
Cut and paste? I made that site for my basic web design class, I haven't had time to go back and make all the elements gell together. I wrote almost the entire thing by hand to learn css and xhtml. I added the flash menu and scripts to use a flickr feed to automatically update the galleries after so it would be a usable site. Anyway it's not done either, but it's far from being cut and paste. I designed it from the ground up as well. Hopefully I can address some of the issues with it in my advanced web design class.
My main goal in using that menu with it was to learn how that flash menu and the actionscript in it worked since it interfaces with html/xml so well. I modified a lot of the actionscript in the flash file to work so that it would have 2 instances of it on the same page, since a lot of the callout function names had to be changed and point to different files and such. I still need to go back into the actionscript and modify a lot of the design elements. Since the entire thing is coded in actionscript, even the visual elements, it's very difficult to understand, it's not a typical flash like file at all where there are graphical elements, which I expect why it's so fast and small.
Adding the javascript to put a html feature in there instead of a flash menu should be pretty interesting, which I will try to do if I get time.
I still don't agree that flash is just being implemented because there's no other solution. There's no reason that the entire web couldn't be flash based. Websites I've seen like the Keio-ensoku site are what inspired me to try to become a web designer. They're all encompassing and engrossing and show the potential of the web. No non flash site I've ever seen has that kind of potential to interact with a viewer, at least not one that doesn't have a huge team of developers that have put thousands of hours into coding it.
When I said copy and paste I was referring just to the flash menu itself as the same menus appear on other sites and appear to be practically identical. I understand what you are saying about changing things in it as I am familiar with mostly actionscript flash files as I have developed quite a few of them.
But if you are already programming in a dialect of ECMAScript fixing (what sounds like) crappy code and the destination is a browser, might as well try javascript out :-D
Because of the limitations of flash, any times I've worked with it professionally it has been to provide, essentially, flash applications that run on desktops, not in web browsers. Usually the intranet sites I work on have to meet accessibility guidelines that flash can't accomodate. Many of the corporate websites on the internet will not use it for anything vital on their internet sites for the same reason.
There isn't actually a reason to exclude disabled folks from being able to view a site. For an individual's site its just their personal preference to exclude people because of their disability. If the page is made well, it can be beautiful and still be 100% accessible to disabled visitors. The key is to learn how to develop the page elegantly.
I hope one of the courses includes making a webpage that looks beautiful as it degrades from a full browser with plugins to a browser with no plugins to a browser with no JS all the way to a text based browser. If you build your sites with that in mind the net result will work on the vast majority of browsers with very little work and will be beautiful and accessible.
We had a large section of our web design class which dealt with user accessibility and following those guidelines. I just never agreed with the laws that the government sites have to follow. I don't see why I shouldn't exclude disabled people, why I should limit my tools and abilities, and why I should make things harder on myself in my design so that less than 10%, and possibly even 1% of the possible people that would be view the site can see it in whatever even further degraded way they would view it in.
It's not my problem that disabled people can't view my website. I refuse to design for the weakest possible viewer. It's not going to take my websites to the next level. You can be elegant perhaps with such tools, but you're never going to be MIND BLOWING, and mind blowing is what I want to aim for, even if I never make it.
I CANNOT READ YOUR POST as your text is too small please enlarge it you should not be telling people like me i cannot read your post you are probably talking behind my back arent you you scum
You have lost any respect I might have had for you.
You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest. The solution lies in designing specifically for individual handicaps that allows them to be as or possibly even more functional than a normal capable person. Not for every designer to design in their fields for them. For instance designing a walker/weelchair that can climb steps, instead of every bloody building having to have a ramp. The solution should be for the many to suffer because the few can't keep up.
Well by that viewpoint, I shouldn't have to deal with Internet Explorer. I shouldn't have to care what percentage of the population uses it. Because it's the biggest stumbling block to web design. Internet Explorer insists on doing everything just slightly differently. From a design standpoint, it's my biggest obstacle. So I should just ignore it.
That's what you're saying isn't it?
I don't know if I should laugh or punch that guy in the throat. I'm leaning towards punching him in the throat.
I hope karma catches up with you.Show Image(http://www.roddenberry.com/media/upload/image/DragonCon%20Trek%20costumers/pike%20and%20seven.jpg)
You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest. The solution shouldn't be for the many to suffer and slow down to the speed of the handicapped person, because the few handicapped people can't keep up.
Portability and accessibility is not just something to do for those less fortunate than you. Regardless of how you feel about people with disabilities, it's not all about inconveniencing you so that a minority can be accomodated. Stuff that's accessible is also far more durable. Content that's made accessible can be easily integrated into whatever future technologies come about that we cannot even envision today and when those new devices come about, the inventors may make the decision that they can't accommodate the minority of designers who decided that everything should be in Flash.
Although we keep bringing up the name "Flash" the issue of accesibility isn't a game of Flash lovers against the world. You can have awful Javascript or other standards based protocols that suffers from the same problems that Flash does.
It might just be my impression, but what I see is a guy who's feeling insecure and is getting defensive in response to critique. The things that are getting pointed out have nothing to do with how any of us feel about art and creativity or handcuffing artists so that they can't create anything beautiful. Nobody gives a damn how you built a site if you did it that way because that was to the best of your ability at the time or if you just don't have time to learn how to do it a better way. It has nothing to do with how we feel about creativity and art. Contrary to popular belief, really good developers are not cold pure left brained logic machines. Web development is very much a right brained discipline as well in many ways.
BTW Tim, the bunny game was a neat example, but I think I gotta agree with Chimera that it's not that impressive. It probably would have been better and easier to do that game in Flash. Flash is perfect for stuff like that.